State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Manju Wife Of Late Sh. Shishu Pal vs 1.Haryana State Through Health ... on 30 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA Complaint No.23 of 2008 Date of Institution: 24.08.2008 Date of Decision: 30.10.2012 1. Manju wife of late Sh. Shishu Pal, D/o Rattan Singh R/o House No.111F, Sector 19, Panchkula. 2. Viashnavi (minor) d/o late Sh. Shishu Pal and Manju, R/o House No.111F, Sector 19, Panchkula. Complainants Versus 1. Haryana State through Health Secretary 2. General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula through its CMO 3. Dr. Sanjeev Trehan, Doctor of General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. 4. Dr. Vivek Bahadur, Doctor of General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. 5. Dr. Manish, Doctor of General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. 6. Nurses/Paramedical Staff, in Charge/Chief, matron or any person as in its capacity as a head of Nursing Home of General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. Opposite Parties 7. P.G.I. through its Director. Performa Opposite Party BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. For the Parties: Shri Baljit Bhullar, Advocate for complainants. Shri Ajay Chaudhary, Senior D.A.G. on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and 6. Shri K.S. Arya, Advocate for Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.5 exparte. Shri Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for Opposite Party No.7. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
The brief facts of the present complaint stated by the complainants are as under:-
Shishu Pal-husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2 suffered injuries in an accident on 18.7.2005 and was admitted in P.G.I. on 19.7.2005 where he underwent a surgery. The surgery was successful and the injured Shishu Pal (since deceased) was recovering nicely and remained under the careful supervision of the concerned department of P.G.I. till 31.7.2005. Under the directions of the Doctors at P.G.I., Shishu Pal was discharged, however, it was felt necessary for the patient to be under medical supervision for an additional period and for that reason the P.G.I. doctors instructed the patient Shishu to admit him in General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula for general supervision and nursing care till he was fully recovered.
The complainant has produced the treatment record at P.G.I. as Annexure C-1 and Discharge Summary of P.G.I. as Annexure C-2.
Father of complainant No.1 (father-in-law of patient Shishu Pal) when visited his son-in-law next morning found that the feeding tube (pipe) had been removed during night. He (complainants father) immediately informed and requested Dr. Trehan to reattach the tube upon which Dr. Trehan instructed him to contact Dr. Manish for replacing the feeding tube because the old tube which was already detached could not be reused. Dr. Manish visited the patient and made a list of things which he asked the complainants father to get from the medical stone. The requisite items were brought and Dr. Manish came to fix the tube. Dr. Manish was also joined by Dr. Trehan and Dr. Vivek Bahadur who told the complainants father that the tube was unnecessary and that the patient could be fed orally. Despite the vehement protests made by father of the complainant No.1, the feeding tube was removed on the instructions of Dr. Trehan and Dr. Vivek Bahadur who mockingly told the complainants father that if he himself was a doctor, why did he admit the patient in their care. Could he not treat his son-in-law himself? Thereafter, Shishu Pal (patient now deceased) was given medicine and juice orally which led to his health deteriorating at night. Father of complainant immediately contacted the doctor on emergency duty who came and prescribed an injection from the medical store and the doctor on duty injected the patient Shishu Pal. After some time, a nurse came to ask the complainants father to come and remove phlegm, which was blocking the windpipe of the patient. Uncertain as t the correct procedure of handling such a delicate problem, he asked the nurses to show him how to do it. The nurses on duty refused saying it was not their job and was in the domain of fourth-class employees. They went away without removing the phlegm that would have helped the patient breathe easier. Due to choking due to a blocked windpipe, it came necessary to administer oxygen. Complainants father tried to locate a nurse but could not find anyone to help him. However, with the help of an un-known person, other than hospital staff, complainants father was able to put his son-in-law to breathe. The emergency doctor was called who assured that the patient was doing fine and was recovering. Father of complainant No.1 returned home at 2.00 a.m. at night leaving his son-in-law with his brother and another person to look after him. Once again the health of the patient began to worsen and on being brought to emergency by his brother and the other person attending him at night, where he was declared dead by the emergency medical staff. Death Report and Most Mortem report with brief history have been attached with the complaint as Annexure C-3 to Annexure C-5.
The grievance of the complainants is that the life of a patient who was recovering well after undergoing successful surgery, was snuffed out due to the careless approach to their profession and negligence of the doctors and nursing staff of General Hospital Sector-6, Panchkula. According to the complainant-Manju, her husband died due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the doctors and nursing staff of General Hospital Sector-6, Panchkula because the instructions of P.G.I. doctors, who had conducted the surgery and stressed the need of feeding via feeding tube instead of giving food and drink orally, were ignored by the doctors of General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula. The patient was made to take medicine and juice through the mouth inspite of strict and specific instructions to the contrary. The protests of the deceaseds father-in-law were ignored by Dr. Trehan and Dr. Vivek Bahadur, who had ordered the removal of the feeding tube. Feeing through the mouth resulted in blockage of the windpipe with phlegm, choking the patient and making it difficult for the patient to breathe. The nurses on duty refused to help to remove the blockage. Neither they themselves did the same nor they thought that it was necessary. No nurse or doctor could be found to administer oxygen to the patient who was finding it difficult to breath.
Rattan Singh-father of complainant Manju sent a representation (Annexure C-10) to the Ministry of Health, Haryana dated 12.11.2005 to which no reply was received. The complainant sent a notice dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure C-11) through registered post as well as U.P.C. but the opposite parties did not reply the same. However, the opposite party No.7 PGI, Chandigarh sent reply Annexure C-15 through speed post Annexure C-16. The deceased Shishu Pal just nine months before his death was appointed as S.D.O. in Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana vide appointment letter Annexure C-17. The complainants sought compensation of Rs.20 lacs on account of death of deceased who was the sole bread winner of the family. Rs.1.5 lacs and Rs.50,000/- on account of pain and suffering. Thus, the complainant sought total compensation of Rs.22 lacs alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the opposite parties.
Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 and 6 to 7 appeared and contested the complaint. Opposite Party No.5 was proceeded exparte.
Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and 6 in their joint written reply have stated that they are tendering their medical services to the Society free of cost. Shishu Pal deceased had met with an accident on 18.7.2005, he was admitted in P.G.I. on 19.07.2005. He had head injuries, comprised depressed fracture of the frontal bone and went under surgery in P.G.I. on 19.7.2005. The deceased had CSF leak complication in P.G.I. after post operation till 31.07.2005 as per P.G.I. Card Annexure No.1 and was referred to the General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula on the same day and was admitted at 6.10 P.M. The patient was admitted by the casualty Medical Officer. His treatment was started promptly. Dr. Sanjeev Trehan informed about the patient and he checked patient on 01.08.2005 in the morning round. Father in law of the deceased Shish Pal told Dr. Sanjeev Trehan that Ryle Tube of the patient was out upon which Dr. Sanjeev Trehan deputed Dr. Munish Goya, to take care of the Ryle tubes of the patient. The ward Doctors after checking the patient had decided not to re-put the Ryle tube and to start oral feeding. During the intervening night of 01.08.2005, the patient had some breathing problems, which was controlled by the Doctors on duty in the hospital. One of these doctors and anesthetist was also present. Unfortunately despite continues medical cares provided to the patient in the hospital, the patient succumbed to his injuries on 02.08.2005 at 4.45 A.M. The patient expired due to his injuries. The postmortem report also shows that the air ways were healthy and the cause of death was head injury.
Opposite Party No.4 Dr. Vivek Bhadoo, in his separate written statement has stated that he has no concern with the case as he has neither ever treated the deceased Shishu Pal nor seen him or advised him. The deceased was not admitted as a patient of the opposite party No.4. On the relevant day when the patient Shishu Pals condition allegedly deteriorated in the General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula, the opposite party No.4 on not on duty in the ward where the patient was admitted. On 01.08.2005 was operation day for the opposite party No.4 and he was on the duty in operation theatre the whole day. Thus, denying the allegations levelled by the complainant, the opposite party No.4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
No written statement has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.7 P.G.I. being a performa party and statement in this regard was made by Shri Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate on 13th July, 2011.
In her evidence complainant Smt. Manju tendered her affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Rattan Singh Ex.CW2/A alongwith the already annexed documents as Ex.C-1 to C-17.
Opposite Party No.7 did not lead any evidence and statement of Shri Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate to this effect was recorded on 5th September, 2012.
In the evidence of opposite party No.4 affidavit of Dr. Vivek Bhadoo, SMO, General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula as RW4/A was tendered.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the complainant it has been argued that the deceased was admitted in P.G.I. on 19.7.2005 where he was operated and the surgery was successful. The patient was recovering and remained under the treatment and care of P.G.I. till 31.07.2005. As the patient had to take some more time for full recovery of his health, therefore, the patient was shifted to General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula for general supervision and nursing care till he was fully recovered. In support of his argument learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the Discharge and follow-up card Ex.C-1 and Discharge Summary Ex.C-2. Death Report of the deceased is Ex.C-3, Postmortem Report is Ex.C-4, the proceedings conducted by the Police of Police Station, Ismailabad Ex.C-5, the newspapers clippings Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, Death Certificate of Shish Pal Ex.C-9, Ex.C-10 Representation made by Rattan Singh (father-in-law of deceased), Ex.C-11 Registered/UPC notice alongwith postal receipts Ex.C-12, Regd.AD Ex.C-13, UPC receipt Ex.C-14, Legal Notice Ex.C-15, Postal Regd. Envelop Ex.C-16, Appointment Letter Ex.C-17. It has further argued by the learned counsel for the complainants that in view of the aforesaid evidence, it is a case of clear negligence on the part of the Doctors as well as Nursing Staff of General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula and therefore they be held liable to pay compensation to the complainants.
Controverting the contention raised on behalf of the complainants, it has been argued on behalf of the opposite parties that the postmortem report (Ex.C-4) it is not mentioned that the death of the deceased was caused due to removing of the feeding tube (pipe) and by direct feeding of the patient but in the postmortem report it is clearly mentioned that the deceased died due to extensive head injury. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has drawn our attention towards the Postmortem Report Ex.C-4 wherein the cause of death, stated above, has been recorded at page 20.
Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, we do not find an iota of evidence to connect the opposite parties with the alleged medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors. In the postmortem report it has been made clear that the deceased died due to the extensive head injury suffered by him. No expert evidence has been produced by the complainants that the deceased died due to removing of the feeding tube (pipe). The newspaper clippings cannot be termed as cogent and convincing evidence to hold the treating Doctors/Nursing Staff of General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula negligent and deficient in treating the deceased because these reports are based on hearsay evidence and not based on medical reports.
Before parting with the judgment, we feel sympathy with the wife of the deceased who has lost her life partner at the young age and became widow. We feel helpless for granting her any compensation with respect to the death of her husband for lack of evidence connecting the opposite parties with any kind of negligence. No doubt, the newspapers clippings highlights the negligence on the part of Doctors of General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula but the opinion recorded in the postmortem report produced has given clean chit to the opposite parties in this regard. We are further of the view that a parallel media trial of holding the doctors as negligent is not appreciated when no documentary evidence corroborates the news item. Thus, with heavy heart, we dismiss this complaint Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 30.10.2012 President Dr. Rekha Sharma Member